Really, are you totally unaware of the many decades of research and the vast body of work on "alternative medicine", and the various philosophies that incorporate it? Have you never heard of homeopathy, for example?
Although your point is interesting, I keep seeing newspaper articles about how survey X shows that men on average have had 30% more sexual partners than women.
Surveys could well show that without anyone lying... if there is a small outlier group which isn't properly represented.
For the sake of the argument, assume that men frequent prostitues far more often than women (it's a stretch, I know, but just go with it). How many prostitues would you imagine were interviewed for these surveys? If a hooker gets a random phone call saying "we want to ask you about how many partners you've had", how likely is she to tell the caller to fuck off, compared to someone not employed in her trade?
The reported disparity could well be explained by sampling bias, or other statistical quirks. In this case distribution makes a huge difference because if there are small but significant outliers who refuse to be part of your survey, you're going to get shit results.
The conclusion fits with our stereotypes on male/female sexuality, but it's a mathematical impossibility more easily explained by self-reporting bias.
Absolutely, that's one of the factors. I read an interesting study talking about the difference in how men and women actually come up with their numbers when asked to do so. Women tend to try and count their partners by name, which tends to result in a low estimate because they invariably forget some. Whereas men tend to go for a rough guess of the total, which often results in overestimates. None of them are necessarily trying to be untruthful; they just use different methods which result in different biases.
This, along with my previous couple paragraphs, are some of the reasons why surveys are often pretty useless.
But none of that really has much to do with the perception of differences in promiscuity; people tend to base those perceptions on personal observation/experience rather than surveys.
This. I have no problem with any amount of ads as long they do not track me.
I have a problem with ads which use 5 times as much of my mobile data as the rest of the page put together. Especially when I'm reading a text based article which would be 1/10,000th of the size on it's own.
TextOnly browser is a great solution, when it works.
From the length of his comment it's pretty coast that he's a busy man who doesn't have time to read more than the headline. Clearly this whole "summary" thing is a failed business model.
Well, if you guys would stop tying your hands while your children are getting murdered to fuck, maybe you'd get less condecension?
Oh I don't mind the condescension; it's hilarious. The only way it could be funnier is if you were a North Korean haughtily lecturing a westerner about how the right to criticize the state leads to anarchy and destruction.
Personally I think the best way to select a president would be to have a national lottery which randomly picks 5 names, and then let people vote between them. It would probably result in far less corruption than the current system.
Among these "very few people" are Slashdot users who pride themselves on being "technically correct, the best kind of correct," as a Futurama character put it. I've seen several comments to the effect: "If you want a small form factor Linux device for lightweight development work, buy an Android tablet and pair a keyboard."
Of course it is Linux based, and I wouldn't argue with anyone who called it "Linux"; I said "most people" not "most Slashdot users".
I do think that using an android tablet as a lightweight development device is a horrible idea though. Pretty much all of them use an outdated kernel, they have limited support for peripherals, and are limited in many other ways. You are far better off buying a raspberry pi or odroid type device and putting a standard Linux desktop distro on it. If you need it to be portable you can buy a small USB powered monitor and power both the odroid and monitor from a power bank.
In practice, GNU/Linux, Android/Linux, and BusyBox/Linux have very different use cases: desktops and servers, phones and tablets, and routers and other appliances. To which of these do people refer "when people talk about Linux in general discussion"?
For most people it's curiosity about the desktop OS variants; very few people think of android as being Linux, and those who know enough to be looking up info on servers and embedded devices probably aren't browsing Wikipedia for that information anyway. But there's no reason why all of those use cases couldn't be mentioned briefly, with links to more detailed articles.
Better yet, write an entire article about that difference and link to it from this sentence in lead section of "Linux". No wait: Wikipedia already does exactly that.
You're confusing two different concepts. Certifications aren't licences. In a field which requires a license you cannot legally work unless you have it. Whereas in IT I do not NEED an MCSE "license" in order to play minesweeper or solitaire; I'm just more likely to be hired by a pointy haired boss if I have the certification.
Facts: Linus never named his kernel "linux kernel", the kernel's name is linux, as in Mach, NT, e.t.c., there's no such thing as Linux, a family of operating systems, because Linux refers to a kernel and is a registered trademark as "Linux".
That's wonderful. Other facts: when people talk about Linux in general discussion they are referring to the set of operating systems based on the Linux kernel. When people look up Linux on Wikipedia, they are almost universally looking for information about those operating systems rather than the kernel.
Encyclopaedias aren't intended to be a pedants wet dream; their purpose is to document and communicate useful information. Had you included just a single sentence clarifying the difference between the original word "Linux" and the common usage, I doubt it would have been removed. Instead you decided to rewrite the whole article because it annoys you. What did you really expect?
In fact, the traditional belief that men are more promiscuous than women can't actually be correct, due to basic maths. if you have e.g. 100 men and 100 women, and each man has dated 3 women on average, then each woman must have dated 3 men on average as well, out of mathematically necessity.
It's more about the distribution than the average. Say, in a group of 100 men you have 50 who have never dated, 25 who have 1 date, 15 who have had 2 dates, 5 who have had 3, and 5 who have had 50. Then in the corresponding female group you have 5 who have had 1 date, 20 with 2 dates, 25 with 3 dates, and 50 with 4 dates. The average is the same for both groups, but any random woman you select is likely to be more "promiscuous" than any random man.
The same with cheating. If some men are cheaters, they must be cheating with someone, which implies female cheaters they're cheating with. Or, if they somehow are only cheating with single women, then some other single men must be getting *zero* partners to make up the difference. e.g. if married men are more promiscuous than married women, then single men must be less promiscuous than single women, which is a result that would seem to be contradictory to common sense: what's more likely is that married men and married women are equally likely to be cheaters.
No that doesn't work. You're mixing promiscuity and cheating, which are two different things, so your conclusion simply doesn't follow from the rest of your argument. But, even ignoring that, it falls apart for the same reason I listed above; distributions matter more than averages.
Besides which, if, say, 100% of men cheat, and 0% of women cheat, it's quite possible that there is a subset of women who service a large number of cheaters. Professionally. There might even be a name for sure a profession.
Simple Logic: 1. Human are afraid of the unknown. Every horror movie director knows this. It seems to be evolutionally programmed into us. (Perhaps for good reasons)
Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of humans who sailed the unknown seas, bashed their way through unknown jungles, explored the unknown depths of the oceans, and blasted off into the unknowns of space.
The problem with "simple logic" is that it's almost always overly simplistic.
With this in mind, there's really only 4 possible scenarios: reconnaissance, plunder, destruction, or assistance. So there's a 2/4 chance our race is fucked, a 1/4 chance that we don't notice anything at all, and a 1/4 chance of becoming a thriving interstellar civilization.
If you get behind the wheel of your car, there are really only 6 possible scenarios:
1. You crash into a tree and die. 2. You crash into a car and die. 3. You crash into a truck and die. 4. You crash into a wall and die. 5. You crash into a pedestrian and badly damage your car. 6. You make it home safe.
So there's a 5/6 chance that you're fucked, and only a 1/6 chance of a happy outcome.
With the garage door closed, take all the products you will use in a lifetime and pour them all out in your garage and go to sleep in there. Will you wake up the next morning?
No, you would drown.
Ignoring that for a moment, it would be a race to see what kills you first; the chlorine gas from bleach and vinegar, the chloramine vapour from mixing ammonia and bleach, or the massive hydrogen explosion from mixing drano and aluminium. Either way, you're going to leave a fun crime scene for the coroner to investigate.
So, you agree that license keys are a violation of copyright law? And that EULAs that stipulate OEM license transfer are legally non-binding?
What kind of crackhead question is this? When did I say anything remotely like that? So you agree that slavery is, like, totally cool?
If you do, then I'd definitely agree with the point about the copies being illegal. Otherwise, every retail box of Windows is illegal until such point as someone actually agrees to the EULA. Ie, retail shops sell illegal copies of Windows. Same with OEMs selling computers with Windows pre-installed and a restore CD.
Again, I have to wonder what kind of drugs you're on. What's illegal about a shop selling licensed copies of an operating system? WTF does the EULA have to do with what a store is or isn't allowed to do?
This jackass isn't accused of violating the EULA; he's accused of making and selling unauthorized reproductions of a copyrighted work. It has absolutely nothing to do with the EULA.
Wtf does that have to do with anything? He didn't buy the discs or the licences; that's the whole problem. It's as if he downloaded a book, made 28,000 copies, and then sold those copies.
Slashdot Mirror
With the demographics of the world getting more diverse
Wtf does this nonsense even mean? How exactly can global demographics be getting "more diverse"? Is our planet importing aliens from alpha centauri?
Really, are you totally unaware of the many decades of research and the vast body of work on "alternative medicine", and the various philosophies that incorporate it? Have you never heard of homeopathy, for example?
FTFY.
Where are mothers supposed to come from, when women see that they won't get hired when they want to get pregnant?
From stay-at-home moms with hard working husbands, like god intended!
And from welfare-for-life trailer trash with a fridge full of beer and a disdain for condoms, like progressives intended.
"Superficial"? Race, gender and sexual orienation are not superficial traits.
You are absolutely correct; race, gender, and sexual orientation are what sperate the ubermenschen from the untermenschen.
Although your point is interesting, I keep seeing newspaper articles about how survey X shows that men on average have had 30% more sexual partners than women.
Surveys could well show that without anyone lying ... if there is a small outlier group which isn't properly represented.
For the sake of the argument, assume that men frequent prostitues far more often than women (it's a stretch, I know, but just go with it). How many prostitues would you imagine were interviewed for these surveys? If a hooker gets a random phone call saying "we want to ask you about how many partners you've had", how likely is she to tell the caller to fuck off, compared to someone not employed in her trade?
The reported disparity could well be explained by sampling bias, or other statistical quirks. In this case distribution makes a huge difference because if there are small but significant outliers who refuse to be part of your survey, you're going to get shit results.
The conclusion fits with our stereotypes on male/female sexuality, but it's a mathematical impossibility more easily explained by self-reporting bias.
Absolutely, that's one of the factors. I read an interesting study talking about the difference in how men and women actually come up with their numbers when asked to do so. Women tend to try and count their partners by name, which tends to result in a low estimate because they invariably forget some. Whereas men tend to go for a rough guess of the total, which often results in overestimates. None of them are necessarily trying to be untruthful; they just use different methods which result in different biases.
This, along with my previous couple paragraphs, are some of the reasons why surveys are often pretty useless.
But none of that really has much to do with the perception of differences in promiscuity; people tend to base those perceptions on personal observation/experience rather than surveys.
This. I have no problem with any amount of ads as long they do not track me.
I have a problem with ads which use 5 times as much of my mobile data as the rest of the page put together. Especially when I'm reading a text based article which would be 1/10,000th of the size on it's own.
TextOnly browser is a great solution, when it works.
From the length of his comment it's pretty coast that he's a busy man who doesn't have time to read more than the headline. Clearly this whole "summary" thing is a failed business model.
Well, if you guys would stop tying your hands while your children are getting murdered to fuck, maybe you'd get less condecension?
Oh I don't mind the condescension; it's hilarious. The only way it could be funnier is if you were a North Korean haughtily lecturing a westerner about how the right to criticize the state leads to anarchy and destruction.
He is completely unqualified to be President.
You say that as if it's a bad thing.
Personally I think the best way to select a president would be to have a national lottery which randomly picks 5 names, and then let people vote between them. It would probably result in far less corruption than the current system.
Obviously Sweden will make an exception for sexual emergencies. They're not barbarians.
Among these "very few people" are Slashdot users who pride themselves on being "technically correct, the best kind of correct," as a Futurama character put it. I've seen several comments to the effect: "If you want a small form factor Linux device for lightweight development work, buy an Android tablet and pair a keyboard."
Of course it is Linux based, and I wouldn't argue with anyone who called it "Linux"; I said "most people" not "most Slashdot users".
I do think that using an android tablet as a lightweight development device is a horrible idea though. Pretty much all of them use an outdated kernel, they have limited support for peripherals, and are limited in many other ways. You are far better off buying a raspberry pi or odroid type device and putting a standard Linux desktop distro on it. If you need it to be portable you can buy a small USB powered monitor and power both the odroid and monitor from a power bank.
In practice, GNU/Linux, Android/Linux, and BusyBox/Linux have very different use cases: desktops and servers, phones and tablets, and routers and other appliances. To which of these do people refer "when people talk about Linux in general discussion"?
For most people it's curiosity about the desktop OS variants; very few people think of android as being Linux, and those who know enough to be looking up info on servers and embedded devices probably aren't browsing Wikipedia for that information anyway. But there's no reason why all of those use cases couldn't be mentioned briefly, with links to more detailed articles.
Better yet, write an entire article about that difference and link to it from this sentence in lead section of "Linux". No wait: Wikipedia already does exactly that.
Precisely my point.
You're confusing two different concepts. Certifications aren't licences. In a field which requires a license you cannot legally work unless you have it. Whereas in IT I do not NEED an MCSE "license" in order to play minesweeper or solitaire; I'm just more likely to be hired by a pointy haired boss if I have the certification.
Facts: Linus never named his kernel "linux kernel", the kernel's name is linux, as in Mach, NT, e.t.c., there's no such thing as Linux, a family of operating systems, because Linux refers to a kernel and is a registered trademark as "Linux".
That's wonderful. Other facts: when people talk about Linux in general discussion they are referring to the set of operating systems based on the Linux kernel. When people look up Linux on Wikipedia, they are almost universally looking for information about those operating systems rather than the kernel.
Encyclopaedias aren't intended to be a pedants wet dream; their purpose is to document and communicate useful information. Had you included just a single sentence clarifying the difference between the original word "Linux" and the common usage, I doubt it would have been removed. Instead you decided to rewrite the whole article because it annoys you. What did you really expect?
In fact, the traditional belief that men are more promiscuous than women can't actually be correct, due to basic maths. if you have e.g. 100 men and 100 women, and each man has dated 3 women on average, then each woman must have dated 3 men on average as well, out of mathematically necessity.
It's more about the distribution than the average. Say, in a group of 100 men you have 50 who have never dated, 25 who have 1 date, 15 who have had 2 dates, 5 who have had 3, and 5 who have had 50. Then in the corresponding female group you have 5 who have had 1 date, 20 with 2 dates, 25 with 3 dates, and 50 with 4 dates. The average is the same for both groups, but any random woman you select is likely to be more "promiscuous" than any random man.
The same with cheating. If some men are cheaters, they must be cheating with someone, which implies female cheaters they're cheating with. Or, if they somehow are only cheating with single women, then some other single men must be getting *zero* partners to make up the difference. e.g. if married men are more promiscuous than married women, then single men must be less promiscuous than single women, which is a result that would seem to be contradictory to common sense: what's more likely is that married men and married women are equally likely to be cheaters.
No that doesn't work. You're mixing promiscuity and cheating, which are two different things, so your conclusion simply doesn't follow from the rest of your argument. But, even ignoring that, it falls apart for the same reason I listed above; distributions matter more than averages.
Besides which, if, say, 100% of men cheat, and 0% of women cheat, it's quite possible that there is a subset of women who service a large number of cheaters. Professionally. There might even be a name for sure a profession.
Simple Logic:
1. Human are afraid of the unknown. Every horror movie director knows this. It seems to be evolutionally programmed into us. (Perhaps for good reasons)
Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of humans who sailed the unknown seas, bashed their way through unknown jungles, explored the unknown depths of the oceans, and blasted off into the unknowns of space.
The problem with "simple logic" is that it's almost always overly simplistic.
With this in mind, there's really only 4 possible scenarios: reconnaissance, plunder, destruction, or assistance. So there's a 2/4 chance our race is fucked, a 1/4 chance that we don't notice anything at all, and a 1/4 chance of becoming a thriving interstellar civilization.
If you get behind the wheel of your car, there are really only 6 possible scenarios:
1. You crash into a tree and die.
2. You crash into a car and die.
3. You crash into a truck and die.
4. You crash into a wall and die.
5. You crash into a pedestrian and badly damage your car.
6. You make it home safe.
So there's a 5/6 chance that you're fucked, and only a 1/6 chance of a happy outcome.
Also make them have weird hair sex with their alien horses. Just because.
From the likes of you that's the ultimate compliment. Thanks for letting me know I'm on the right track.
License was paid for by OEM to sell with the computer. The guy has the computer and the license belongs to the machine.
No, he doesn't have the computer. Even if he did, it doesn't give him the right to sell copies of disks.
I don't actually know or care about the law.
Then you have no place in society, other than behind bars.
I use morality.
So did Dahmer. The problem with "morality" is that it's entirely personal.
With the garage door closed, take all the products you will use in a lifetime and pour them all out in your garage and go to sleep in there. Will you wake up the next morning?
No, you would drown.
Ignoring that for a moment, it would be a race to see what kills you first; the chlorine gas from bleach and vinegar, the chloramine vapour from mixing ammonia and bleach, or the massive hydrogen explosion from mixing drano and aluminium. Either way, you're going to leave a fun crime scene for the coroner to investigate.
And it would stay in the environment forever instead of being temporarily taken back out when new livestock is born and grown.
Err ... ahh ... what?
Are you under the strange impression that cows eat methane?
So, you agree that license keys are a violation of copyright law? And that EULAs that stipulate OEM license transfer are legally non-binding?
What kind of crackhead question is this? When did I say anything remotely like that? So you agree that slavery is, like, totally cool?
If you do, then I'd definitely agree with the point about the copies being illegal. Otherwise, every retail box of Windows is illegal until such point as someone actually agrees to the EULA. Ie, retail shops sell illegal copies of Windows. Same with OEMs selling computers with Windows pre-installed and a restore CD.
Again, I have to wonder what kind of drugs you're on. What's illegal about a shop selling licensed copies of an operating system? WTF does the EULA have to do with what a store is or isn't allowed to do?
This jackass isn't accused of violating the EULA; he's accused of making and selling unauthorized reproductions of a copyrighted work. It has absolutely nothing to do with the EULA.
He was given a book by a publisher as part of a licensing deal and provided copies to other people who had also been provided copies but had lost them
Which is completely illegal.
Just stop.
Wtf does that have to do with anything? He didn't buy the discs or the licences; that's the whole problem. It's as if he downloaded a book, made 28,000 copies, and then sold those copies.
What idiots are modding up your comment?